FAQ
Answers to questions and arguments frequently
heard or read regarding the Magpie River Hydroelectric Development
Project.
Certain responses to the arguments presented hereunder
can be found in the documents on the BAPE Internet website or in
the public hearing transcriptions
Where
applicable, the references have been provided at the end of the
response.
- Q1 – Prior to the construction of the current dam, the salmon
would swim up to the third fall of the river, this being more than 6 km
upstream from the dam.
A1 – According to the former Inuit
members of the Mingan community represented by Mr. Mitchel, the
salmon have never swum upstream from the site of the first fall
where the current dam
is located, even prior to its construction. Ref. Transcript BAPE
DT2, pages 9 and 10.
- Q2 – Parks Canada has undertaken a Federal park project
at the basin of the Magpie River.
A2 – According to Mr. Laurent
Tremblay, Executive Director for Parks Canada in Quebec, there
are no plans for a Federal park project on the Magpie River. Ref.
Transcript BAPE DT2, page 59.
- Q3 – The dam project will destroy the river’s
appeal for amateur canoe-kayaking and rafting enthusiasts.
A3 – The project is situated
at the site of the current dam. Even if the projected dam is more
elevated and will raise the water level upstream, it would touch
only 2 km of the river which extends over more than 280 km in length.
The raising of the water level will not prevent sport enthusiasts
from enjoying their sport but rather will improve the access to
the area, as noted by a Government representative during the BAPE
hearings, in particular with the construction of an access ramp
along with various paths. Ref. Transport Canada Document DQ2.1
- Q4 – The second fall, among the river’s most
beautiful, will disappear.
A4 – According to the Mayor
of Rivière St-Jean (Magpie), rafting has always ended upstream
from the third fall; therefore, the second fall is not used. However,
the second fall would only be partially submerged and could be
used in the future since it will be possible to exit near the dam
due to an access ramp constructed for this purpose. Ref. Transcript
BAPE DT1, pages 28 and 29.
- Q5 – Mr. Eric Hertz of Earth River contends that up
to 10,000 tourists could come each year to navigate down the
rapids which would in turn stimulate the local economy.
A5 – According to the Earth
River Internet website, during the last 15 years less than 300
people have descended the river, that is to say less than 20 people
per year. In its 2004 program, Earth River foresees a single descent
for 12 people in August and a single descent for approximately
a dozen people in 2005.
Again according
to Earth River’s website, it costs US $1,900 from Sept-Îles
for a descent of one week wherein one must add between CDN $800
to CDN $1,000 to make the voyage from Montreal or New York to Sept-Îles.
The expedition would cost a total of between CDN $3,300 to CDN
$3,500 per person. Consequently, the expedition expenses limit
the client potential for this type of activity.
Moreover, Mr. Hertz himself acknowledged that these expeditions
had no effect on the local economy. Ref. Transcript BAPE DT6,
page 78.
The distance of the site must also be considered in relation
to the large centres and, above all, to the hydroelectric and
meteorological conditions which will always limit the duration
of the expedition season. The river is situated 1,200 km North-East
of Montreal. There are no access roads. The only two access routes
are by train, which drops off the sporting participants at 278
km from the Eric River (3 weeks of descent on the river), or
by hydroplane. Even Earth River contends that it is almost impossible
to descend the river other than during the month of August. In
fact from December to the end of May, the ice covers the largest
part of the course and the water temperatures near zero degrees;
in June and July there is too much water flow and is therefore
very dangerous; from September to November the temperatures drop
too low.
Furthermore, the participants are brought to the river by a hydroplane,
only 4 passengers and their necessary material at a time. This
represents 2,500 return flights to drop off passengers and as
many times to pick them up, this being 5,000 flights for 30 days
of activity. This represents more than 160 flights per day which
is comparable to the number of plane movements in one month at
Dorval Airport!
It therefore seems unthinkable that the participation in such
expeditions could significantly surpass the actual number of
participants, that is to say a maximum of 20 people per year.
We can easily ask ourselves if it is realistic to create a permanent
tourist industry having only one month of activities per year?
- Q6 – The Magpie project is unjustified on an energy level.
Ref. River Foundation Brief.
A6 – The current estimates
from Hydro-Quebec state an increase in the demand for energy in
2012 superior to today’s demands by 20,3 TWh (millions of
KWh). That is to say that in 8 years this demand will be filled
in part by energy efficiency methods wherein the maximum potential
will be 8TWh and the remaining part will be filled by projects
currently in development, namely the Magpie project. This project
will cost less than the majority of Hydro-Quebec’s projects
and should therefore be favoured. Also, the Magpie project has
been included in Hydro-Quebec’s strategic plan.
- Q7 – The project will flood a large area.
A7 – The flooding will be an
area of 10 ha (0.1 km2 compared to 7,600 km2 from the basin of
the river).
- Q8 – Hydro-Quebec is developing large projects and does
not need to involve itself with small projects such as Magpie.
Ref. SCFP Hydro-Quebec Union Brief.
A8 – Hydro-Quebec also has
projects in development comparable to the size of the Magpie project,
for example:
- Mercier development on the Baskatong Dam of 50.1 MW;
- Allard Falls development of 70 MW;
- Rapides-des-Coeurs development of 80 MW.
The construction of these three projects is anticipated in the next few years.
Hydro-Quebec recently restored the Sept-Chute development of 18 MW near Quebec
as well as the Bell Falls of 10 MW on the Red River.
- Q9 – It is not profitable for Hydro-Quebec to entrust these
projects to a private company.
A9 – The Magpie project was one of three projects
granted following a call for tenders organized by the MRN and Hydro-Quebec
in 2002. The average price of energy proposed by these three projects
was 4.3 c/kWh. If we add the cost of transport of 1.0 c/kWh, the
total cost would be 5.3 c/kWh. This cost is comparable to the projects
currently undertaken by Hydro-Quebec, such as:
| Toulnoustouc |
3.56 c/kWh |
Hydro |
| Mercier |
4.57 c/kWh |
Hydro |
| Eastmain-1 |
6.71 c/kWh |
Hydro |
| Péribonka |
5.49 c/kWh |
Hydro |
| Rapides-des-Coeurs |
7.52 c/kWh |
Hydro |
| Complexe Romaine |
8.1 c/kWh |
Hydro |
| Suroît |
6.6 c/kWh |
Thermal |
| 1000MW wind power |
10 c/kWh |
Wind |
| Short-term offer |
7.8 c/kWh |
Various |
| Bi-energy |
7.9 c/kWh |
Various |
References:
Request R-3526-2004 Régie de l’énergie; HQP-3,
Document 1
Transcript BAPE DT6, page 84
Hydro-Quebec Press Release of June 18, 2004
- Q10 – The project’s promoter coerced the MRC
by offering it financial participation in the project as well
as granting fees.
A-10 – The MRN asked the MRCs where the projects
had been selected to give their accord so that a site may be proposed
to promoters. The MRC of Minganie gave its accord but made a few
requests of its own, namely: financial participation in the project,
the payment of annual fees as well as the payment from a development
fund. These requests were entered into by resolution by the MRC
in 2002. Hydroméga presented its tender in order to satisfy
these requests, and the tender was accepted by the MRN and Hydro-Quebec.
< Back |
